The Honor able Ka ren K . Caldwell, United States District J udg e for the Easter

n District * of Ke ntucky , sitti ng by

desig nation. NO T REC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 07a0630n.06 F iled: August 29, 2007 No. 06-2086 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Plaintiff-Appellee , v. J AMES SC ADI

N, De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) On Appea l from the United States District Court for the Ea stern District of Michig an

Be fore : BO GGS, Chief J udg e; ROGERS, Circuit J udg e; and CAL DWEL L , District

J udg e. * PER CU RIAM . Sc a din , a ft e r a dmi tti ngto v iol a tio ns of the te rm s o f h is
su pe rv ise d r e le a se , w a s se nte nc e d to 18 months of imp ri so nme nt. He a

pp e a ls, arguin g that hi s sentenc e wa s unrea sonable be cause the trial cour t ga ve improper

weig ht to conduct he ha d not
a dmi tt e d , an d

w h ic hh a d

n o t b e e na ll e g e d

in th e h is p r o b a ti o no f

f ic e r ’ s v io lati o np e ti ti o n . We
a ff ir m.

I Scadin’s probation officer submitt ed a violation petition on J uly 14, 2006, alleg ing thr eeScadin’s counse l stated at ora l argument that Scadin was only challeng ing the 1 substantive rea sonablene ss of the sentenc e; howeve r, his argument is frame d larg ely in terms of pr oc e dura l r e a so na

ble ne ss. 2 v i o l at i o n s o f

th e t e r m s o f h i s s u p e r v i s e d r e l e a s e , a l l o f

w h i c hS c a d i na dm i t t e d

a th i s h e ar i n g . In ad d i t i o n , th e p ro b at i o no ff i ce r s u b m i t t eda v i o l at i o nre p o rt , d at edJ un e 2 0 , 2 0 0 6 , d i s cu s s i n g a J une 10, 2006, enc ounter with the police –which, contr ary to the terms of his supervise d rele ase, he fa iled to report to his probation off icer within 72 hours–in which Scadin’s ca r wa s impounded from nea r the site of a

n attempted bre akingand ente ringof an a bandoned building , and char acte rizing Scadin a s a “suspe ct” in it. Duringhis Aug ust 8, 2006 hearing , the trial cour t asked Sca din about the incident; Scadin admitted only that his car ha d been towe d from nea r the building, and that he had c ontacted the police to re trieve his ca r. Prior to sentencing , Scadin ar g ued that, despite a n advisory

Guidelines ra

ng e of 12 to 18 months, communit y

confine ment was a

sufficie nt penalty . The c ourt, in discussing the f actor s on which it based its sentenc ing de termination, commented on Sca din’s “bre ak-ins and la rce nies.” Scadin now objec ts, though he did not at sentencing , to what he be lieves to be the tria l court’s imp ro pe r r e lia

nc e on the un a dmi tte d b re akin g and e nte ri nginc ide nt.

II B e c a us e he fa ile d to ob

je c t on thi s b a sis a t se nte nc ing , to the e xtent th a t Sc a din challeng es the proc edura l rea sonablene ss of his sentence , we r eview only for plain e rror . United Sta te s v . B os tic , 371 F.3d 865, 871. Scadin does not dispute that a se ntencingcourt may 1 consider its own de termination of fa cts not admitted by the def endant, but cla ims that he was not g iven ade quate notice of the judg e’s r eliance on the J une 10, 2006 attempted br eak- in. Given3

that the incident wa s openly discussed duringhis hearing , it is unclear what additional notice Scadin believe s he should have r ece ived, nor doe s he point to any law sug g esting that this noti ce was insuffic ient. Scadin appe ars to be a rguing, w ithout noti ng the contra diction, both that the
rec ord cle arly

indicates that the judg e excessively relied on the J une 10 incident, but that, at the same time, the judg e did not g ive him sufficient indication that he was c onsideringthe incident. He doe s not otherwise c halleng e the pr ocedur al re asonable ness of his sentenc e, and the rec ord indicates that the tria l court consider ed the r eleva nt 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) fa ctors, providingan explanation sufficient to permit meaning ful appe llate re view. See, e .g. , United States v. Foreman , 436 F.3d 638, 640 ( 6th Cir. 2006). Acc ording ly , we f ind no proce dural e rror , much less a plain one. Sc a din , r e lyingat or a l argume nt o n a n unp ub lis he d o pin ion

of thi s c ourt , a

rgue s th a t hi s reque st at sentencingfor a shorter se ntence fully

prese rves his rig ht to challeng e the substantive
rea sonablene ss of his sentence
. See Un ite d S tates v Sa ffo re , 216 F. App’ x 531, 532 (6th Cir. 2007). He failed, how ever , to make any argument at all–beyond his bare a ssertion that a shorte r sentenc e, or one of community confine ment, would have be en suff icient–that his sentence was
su bs tanti ve ly

unre a so na

ble . G ive n th a t hi s se nte nc e , w ith in t he a dv iso ry

Gu ide lin e s r ang e , is entitled to a pre sumption of reasona bleness to which he offe rs no re buttal (aside f rom the argument reg ardingthe J une 10 incident r ejec ted above ), see , e.g. , United States v. W illiams , 436 F.3d 706, 708 ( 6th Cir. 2006), there is no ba sis on which to find that his sentence was substantively

unrea sonable.

III4

Acc ording ly , the sentenc e of the district court is aff irmed.